Stale Mac Pro lineup has pro users concerned

A recent rumor suggests Apple is considering discontinuing the Mac Pro. Though …

Apple’s top-of-the-line workstation, the Mac Pro, hasn’t been updated in well over a year, waiting on Intel’s delayed (and delayed again) Sandy Bridge-E based Xeon processors. The previous upgrade cycle was equally as long, nearly 18 months. Now, rumors are circulating that Apple management has been contemplating just pulling the plug on the Mac Pro altogether.

According to sources speaking to AppleInsider, a planned Mac Pro revision has been in the works for quite some time, but Apple management has been debating its fate as far back as May 2011. Sales of the high-end workstation have dropped considerably to both consumers and enterprise customers, and so profits have taken a nosedive.

Our own Peter Bright contends that the enterprise just isn’t interested in expensive workstations on the whole, and those on the bleeding edge of hardcore performance generally aren’t looking at a Mac. That theory seems to jibe with the rumored low sales figures for Mac Pros; portables are an increasingly large part of Apple's Mac sales—now nearly three-quarters—and desktop sales are primarily iMacs, according to Apple.

With sales so low and profits dwindling, is the Mac Pro just an expensive anachronism? It may be so for some users, especially those who value portability over raw power, don’t require upgrades, and whose expansion needs are served by the PCI Express-based Thunderbolt port Apple introduced across its line over the past year. A few users who previously relied on Mac Pros told Ars they have already traded in for the latest svelte MacBook Air models, for instance.

Not ready to give up

Hardcore Mac Pro users aren’t ready for Apple to give up on them just yet, though. We spoke to a number of professionals, largely in the content creation business, who told Ars that iMacs and Mac minis just aren’t the right solution for their needs.

Jon Alper, a Boston-based independent consultant for various media production interests, suggested he would prefer that his Mac Pros were pried from his cold, dead hands. “I just can't fathom functioning without them,” he told Ars. “I have two sitting on my desk right now, both mostly crunching video.”

Alper cut his teeth crunching numbers on Mac hardware at Harvard Medical School and later managed the IT needs of WGBH Boston's roughly 70-seat Interactive production division. “We rotated new Mac Pros in about every 12 months, and the older machines would get passed around to users that had older machines yet,” Alper said. “Any given machine would typically have a usable life of three to five years, and redeploying to new users was so simple—just pull the drive sled, swap, and redeploy.”

“Managing four terabytes of video data, running twelve to twenty-four hour long effects rendering batches—you just can’t really do that without a Mac Pro,” Alper said.

iMacs or Mac minis just aren’t a suitable replacement in production environments like WGBH Interactive, Apler insists. “Unless you have to pull the motherboard, Mac Pros are absurdly easy to work on,” Alper said. Swapping drives, adding RAM, or adding PCI Express cards or GPUs are relatively simple tasks on a Mac Pro; the same can't be said for even for most PC towers. “I just don't want to have to find a tech dexterous enough to pull the glass off an iMac with suction cups when just about anyone can pull and replace a drive in a Mac Pro,” he said.

For those at the bleeding edge of design, content creation, and scientific computing, the Mac Pro offers a number of advantages over Apple's other hardware. Dual multicore processors, enough slots for obscene amounts of RAM, the ability to run internal RAIDs, customizable GPUs, and the ability to expand functionality with PCI Express cards were all cited by users as reasons to keep the Mac Pro around.

Dr. David Chen of the Office of High Performance Computing and Communications at the National Library of Medicine told Ars that his small five-person team has relied exclusively on Mac Pros using a large Xsan file store. If Apple discontinues the Mac Pro “I’d miss not having an NVIDIA Quadro,” Chen said. “It’s got lots of memory and seems very bulletproof. And my coworker’s Pro has 64 gig of RAM; he is always going to want more memory.”

IT systems administrator and longtime Mac gamer Tom Johnson told Ars that video card options are critical for him on a personal level. “I have generally bought tower cases so I could replace the video card,” he said. “I expect to get five years out of the Mac, but only two out of a video card.”

“The other thing that is nice about Mac Pros is the dual processor. On the high end you get eight cores—I just don't see Apple putting that in any iMac,” Johnson said.

Other users appreciate Apple's use of higher-end Xeon processors. Web developer Enrique Ortiz, a former Microsoft Systems Engineer, noted that Xeons are typically reserved for server hardware. “There are very few systems equivalent to this machine in the Windows environment for the desktop,” he said. “In my experience, only the hardcore geeks could set up a great system like this running Windows or Linux.”

“If Apple kills the Mac Pro I would be devastated—Mac OS X is a cleaner environment for me and I’d really hate to go back,” Ortiz said.

Developers also often rely on Mac Pros to shave significant time off the complex app building process. “I use a Mac Pro at the office to build Mac and iPhone apps,” developer Raphael Sebbe said. “Working with Xcode, which is highly parallel, makes full use of the cores. My Mac Pro has eight cores—16 virtual ones—and does a fresh build about five times faster than on my MacBook Pro.”

Creating Windows switchers

Apple killing the Mac Pro could reverse some of the the switching trend that the company has relied on to expand its user base. Apple claims on nearly every earnings call that about half of new Mac buyers at its retail stores were previously PC users, and those switchers contribute to its quarterly Mac sales records.

Some diehard Mac users just won't switch back. “Could I switch to Windows? Yes, since Adobe makes its Creative Suite for Windows,” graphic designer Christopher Cobble told Ars. “Would I switch? Not even if I had to use a Mac mini.”

But other users wouldn't be able to get by with less expandable, less flexible iMacs or Mac minis. If Apple drops the Mac Pro, Alper said, “I’m gonna buy the biggest, fastest one I can find and just wait. And then hope Windows 8 is as awesome as it’s promised to be. Other Mac hardware just doesn’t have the flexibility and control that I need.”

And researchers in Chen's group are already contemplating a switch to Linux. “Our new post-doc is a Linux person, so he's ordering a pimped out machine from Colfax Systems,” he said. “Another coworker said if the Pros go, he's going Linux.”

"Dire" long-term consequences?

If Apple does decide to kill the Mac Pro, Alper believes the ill effects will extend beyond users' immediate needs. “The risk is dire, in my opinion,” he told Ars. “When Apple does things that make it easier for IT guys to say ‘no’ to Apple hardware, they do themselves a disservice. Things like the consumerization of Lion Server, they make it easier for the corporate Windows IT guy to just say ‘no,’ but when they have one of the best personal computers on the market, the Mac Pro, it makes it easier to say ‘yes.’”

“Employees have been gaining grassroots support for Macs by bringing in their own machines. Those guys in IT, they will use the Mac Pro's death as a reason to cut support,” Alper said.

Unfortunately, as iPhones and the iOS ecosystem has come to represent 70 percent of Apple's revenue, what little enterprise support it has offered in the past has waned. “Apple has been abandoning the enterprise market for years,” Dan Reshef, Director of Information Technology at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, told Ars. “It began with the end of life of the XRAID, followed by the server class machines, and the Mac Pro could be next.”

“Apple has historically been a computer company driven by an interest to provide a platform for content creation,” Reshef continued. “However, Apple has a [recent] history of simplifying and eliminating products that were a drain on its resources. The enterprise products are likely a resource drain they'd prefer to allocate towards more profitable pursuits, even if it means damaging their own ecosystem and abandoning some of the content creators in the process.”

Performance minded PC users would roll on the floor before being asked to pay for a Xeon based workstation when the standard Desktop Intel Processor line typically beats the Xeon in benchmarks and cost 1/4 as much. However, Apple users *don't have* the luxury of choosing this platform.

The Xeon is an over-priced and over-hyped platform regardless if it's running OSX or Windows. Nobody wants to waste money on Xeon based workstations in the Windows arena because the only advantage of the Xeon is multiple physical CPUs, so Apple is finally running out of kool-aid to feed their user base. In agreement with the poster above, Intel does not make special processors for Apple nor special chip-sets. Apple has fed this crud to their users to maintain their sense of identity.

Up until the nano-second before Steve Jobs announced Apple was moving to Intel Apple Zealots would spit venom at any thought of moving to Intel and went out of their way to prove the superiority of the IBM PowerPC or worse yet, Motorola. Then all of a sudden the Intel platforms were 2x as fast as the Altivec capable ones were, so exactly what brand of Ritalin are Apple users snorting? Then again the Xserve was supposed to be a serious player and a threat to HP and Dell's channel partners.

Oh yeah...I love the Apple users with the Windows 7 PCs that constantly crash. Ever tried not using your desktop in the shower?

Performance minded PC users would roll on the floor before being asked to pay for a Xeon based workstation when the standard Desktop Intel Processor line typically beats the Xeon in benchmarks and cost 1/4 as much. However, Apple users *don't have* the luxury of choosing this platform.

The Xeon is an over-priced and over-hyped platform regardless if it's running OSX or Windows. Nobody wants to waste money on Xeon based workstations in the Windows arena because the only advantage of the Xeon is multiple physical CPUs, so Apple is finally running out of kool-aid to feed their user base.

I'm not going to bother touching the rest of your post as it was just trying to rile people up w/stupid statements, but you answered your own statement above. The only reasons for interest in Xeon are ECC memory and multiple CPU setups and multi-CPU is a big advantage if you are using software that makes full use of every core you have. "Performance minded PC users", is this a codephrase for "gamer"? Of course gamers won't spend on a Xeon, no game out there will make use of a dozen cores and a dozen more virtuals and most games are GPU limited rather than CPU anyway. People who are folding proteins, processing gigantic photo and video files, running an obscene number of virtual tracks of audio, they will make use of those extra CPUs and thus be in the market for server chips instead of desktop chips.

If people are buying Intel and need to run multiple CPUs (not just a single multi-core CPU), they have no option but Xeon. The people who are buying workstations on the Windows side of things are also buying Xeons. If they can afford to not have ECC memory and run a consumer desktop processor instead, I'm sure they do.

Performance minded PC users would roll on the floor before being asked to pay for a Xeon based workstation when the standard Desktop Intel Processor line typically beats the Xeon in benchmarks and cost 1/4 as much. However, Apple users *don't have* the luxury of choosing this platform.

The Xeon is an over-priced and over-hyped platform regardless if it's running OSX or Windows. Nobody wants to waste money on Xeon based workstations in the Windows arena because the only advantage of the Xeon is multiple physical CPUs, so Apple is finally running out of kool-aid to feed their user base.

I'm not going to bother touching the rest of your post as it was just trying to rile people up w/stupid statements, but you answered your own statement above. The only reasons for interest in Xeon are ECC memory and multiple CPU setups and multi-CPU is a big advantage if you are using software that makes full use of every core you have. "Performance minded PC users", is this a codephrase for "gamer"? Of course gamers won't spend on a Xeon, no game out there will make use of a dozen cores and a dozen more virtuals and most games are GPU limited rather than CPU anyway. People who are folding proteins, processing gigantic photo and video files, running an obscene number of virtual tracks of audio, they will make use of those extra CPUs and thus be in the market for server chips instead of desktop chips.

If people are buying Intel and need to run multiple CPUs (not just a single multi-core CPU), they have no option but Xeon. The people who are buying workstations on the Windows side of things are also buying Xeons. If they can afford to not have ECC memory and run a consumer desktop processor instead, I'm sure they do.

I think its more a code-name for video encoding, gaming, 3d creation and ultra hi-res shooping.

Protein folding is more of a processing farm kind of thing.

Keep in mind that a single 2600K @5+GHz (or 2700K now) can keep up with 2 Xeons.

Other users appreciate Apple's use of higher-end Xeon processors. Web developer Enrique Ortiz, a former Microsoft Systems Engineer, noted that Xeons are typically reserved for server hardware. “There are very few systems equivalent to this machine in the Windows environment for the desktop,” he said. “In my experience, only the hardcore geeks could set up a great system like this running Windows or Linux.”

Has this guy never heard of a workstation? I suppose with a ~~MSE~~ he's only ever used typical $200 crappy machines, but every major vendor sells proper workstations, with Xeons/Semprons.

Having just replaced my aged MacPro with an iMac (plus GNU/Linux cluster access), my dream would be software for Mac OS that provides integration with GNU/Linux computers as a computational back-end. How feasible is that for tasks like photo and video processing, and other popular MacPro uses?

From my point of view, I hope there's at least one more refresh so I can upgrade to a video card which is only a year out of date (although both AMD and NVIDIA seem to have got bored with the whole "making new video cards" thing). OTOH as someone who uses his Pro mostly for XCode and Logic in OS X, and a fair amount of gaming in Windows, and hates the idea of a perfectly good monitor getting thrown out when an iMac gets replaced, I would be highly miffed if Apple stops making machines with separate monitors and PCI slots.

To those who say an Air can replace a Pro - try a bit of multitrack audio and get back to me on that.

To the Case Warriors - seriously, shut up already. The fact that the Pro is so well built is just icing on the cake.

A few users who previously relied on Mac Pros told Ars they have already traded in for the latest svelte MacBook Air models, for instance.

lol. If this is true then they really weren't Mac Pro users.

I think this is really unfair to say. The point is that some users that previously needed/wanted Mac Pros had instead decided that ultimate portability, not power and flexibility, were more important. It seems as though Apple might be headed in that direction for their entire product line, and for such users the loss of the Mac Pro is no big deal. For other users, however, including a number that chimed in this thread, that isn't the case.

I used to use a G4 iMac, but I was able to replace it years ago with a 12" PBG4. I lost screen real estate, a little bit of processing speed, and the ability to burn DVD-Rs for greater portability. I've been exclusively using laptops ever since. Would it be handy at times to have a more powerful desktop with a larger screen? Absolutely. But I can't afford to have more than one computer, and being able to carry the one I do have anywhere and everywhere I go is more valuable to me.

Having just replaced my aged MacPro with an iMac (plus GNU/Linux cluster access), my dream would be software for Mac OS that provides integration with GNU/Linux computers as a computational back-end. How feasible is that for tasks like photo and video processing, and other popular MacPro uses?

IIRC there are third party Java workers for Xgrid, so you can farm out code compiling and some other tasks.

Apple doesn't care about pro users anymore. If this happens, it'll effectively end high end software development for OS X. It's really hard to see Apple turning their back on users that have properly repped the company's hardware for years.

1) www.apple.com/pro hasn't been updated in 2 years2) Discontinued Xserve, cornerstone for allot of post houses and vfx studios3) Destroying Final Cut Pro with Final Cut X4) Apple started taking longer and longer to release Mac Pro workstations, and absolutely phoned in the latest upgrade last July. 511 days in the making, the newest Mac Pro was one of the most un-inspired hardware upgrades I've ever seen from Apple.

5) If you have been a apple user as long as I have, then you would have noticed apples slowed development of features for os x after the boom of the iPod, last big mac update was switch to intel.6) Lack of Jumbo Frames network capabilities on new mac models like the iMac.7) Apple pulled out of industry trade events like NAB.8) Apple cancelled the popular Shake, promising to replace it with a new tool that never came.

I really don't understand why the desktop OS makes so much difference for some. It's been said by a lot of users: you do your work in the applications you use. Just for fun I specced a Precision T7500 and a Mac Pro with comparable configurations (dual hexacore CPU, 64 GB RAM) where the Dell had a slightly faster CPU. The price difference is staggering, especially when you add more RAM. This can be mitigated somewhat if you buyt for example Kingston RAM which costs about the same across brands but still I could not get the price closer than € 1500 apart. That's a lot of money for just the OS. I've worked in several types of workstations over the years and screws are mostly used to attach disks and optical drives to drive sleds or for power supplies. I don't think people swap those parts often enough that they'd pay € 1500 for the privilege. PCI/PCIe cards and RAM are ridiculously easy to replace.

So again I'm curious why Mac OSX is so much better that some can't seem to do without. This is an honest question!

Performance minded PC users would roll on the floor before being asked to pay for a Xeon based workstation when the standard Desktop Intel Processor line typically beats the Xeon in benchmarks and cost 1/4 as much. However, Apple users *don't have* the luxury of choosing this platform.

The Xeon is an over-priced and over-hyped platform regardless if it's running OSX or Windows. Nobody wants to waste money on Xeon based workstations in the Windows arena because the only advantage of the Xeon is multiple physical CPUs, so Apple is finally running out of kool-aid to feed their user base.

I'm not going to bother touching the rest of your post as it was just trying to rile people up w/stupid statements, but you answered your own statement above. The only reasons for interest in Xeon are ECC memory and multiple CPU setups and multi-CPU is a big advantage if you are using software that makes full use of every core you have. "Performance minded PC users", is this a codephrase for "gamer"? Of course gamers won't spend on a Xeon, no game out there will make use of a dozen cores and a dozen more virtuals and most games are GPU limited rather than CPU anyway. People who are folding proteins, processing gigantic photo and video files, running an obscene number of virtual tracks of audio, they will make use of those extra CPUs and thus be in the market for server chips instead of desktop chips.

If people are buying Intel and need to run multiple CPUs (not just a single multi-core CPU), they have no option but Xeon. The people who are buying workstations on the Windows side of things are also buying Xeons. If they can afford to not have ECC memory and run a consumer desktop processor instead, I'm sure they do.

Protein folding is more typically done with GPUs, to my knowledge. Also, my understanding is Xeon's main applications are powering virtualized servers.

I really don't understand why the desktop OS makes so much difference for some. It's been said by a lot of users: you do your work in the applications you use. Just for fun I specced a Precision T7500 and a Mac Pro with comparable configurations (dual hexacore CPU, 64 GB RAM) where the Dell had a slightly faster CPU. The price difference is staggering, especially when you add more RAM. This can be mitigated somewhat if you buyt for example Kingston RAM which costs about the same across brands but still I could not get the price closer than € 1500 apart. That's a lot of money for just the OS. I've worked in several types of workstations over the years and screws are mostly used to attach disks and optical drives to drive sleds or for power supplies. I don't think people swap those parts often enough that they'd pay € 1500 for the privilege. PCI/PCIe cards and RAM are ridiculously easy to replace.

So again I'm curious why Mac OSX is so much better that some can't seem to do without. This is an honest question!

Mac OSX makes it more difficult to screw something up than Windows. I think people use it because they don't want to deal with the difficulty of managing Windows and they don't know how viable, customizable, and cost-effective Linux is for most tasks.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people pay the extra money for how Apple computers look, although that probably isn't so much the case with the Pro. Perhaps a psychological component equivalent to driving a really extravagant car/watch/etc. You get a lot less usefulness per dollar, but it's a symbol of being in the upper class.

I really don't understand why the desktop OS makes so much difference for some.

So again I'm curious why Mac OSX is so much better that some can't seem to do without. This is an honest question!

I would like to try OSX. I don't own any apple products, but I would consider a Mac if there were something like an xMac/inexpensive Mac Pro.

Why I would want it: Unix based. I work in Unix. I would prefer a unix command line at home and I don't really like the level of polish in Linux or the SW support.Dabble in iOS development. I am considering an iPad and I would like to be able to develop little apps for it. You need a Mac to do this.Another OS that I really haven't used. I have used AmigaDOS,OS/2,Solaris,HP-UX,Digital UNIX,Linux (many distros), MS-DOS, Windows (Most versions since 3.0).

For other home users, it is apparently a slick OS and the HW isn't that out of line on pricing (and very nicely built).For Mac Pro users: I suspect many of them are using a suite of professional apps that started out on the Mac.

Apple does need to get more aggressive with Pro pricing to hang onto the professional market IMO

I understand that some people really love OS X (it is a solid OS in all honesty), but if you are clinging to a Mac Pro that costs at least double what you'd pay for a PC then you're not using it for any practical reason, but emotional ones.

Content creation can be very easily done on PCs, Adobe's full line of software is now natively programmed around Windows and then ported to OS X. Using a PC gives you the option of using AMD's line which are pretty much custom tailored to heavily threaded workloads. The costs, as already mentioned, are significantly below a Mac Pro. And if you really hate Microsoft, anyone who knows what they're doing on OS X should have no trouble picking up Linux. The internal design of Mac Pro's is very clean and elegant (unless, as mentioned in the article you have to deal with a dead mobo) but it's nothing you can't achieve yourself with the right case and cable management.

Honestly, these people who would contemplate replacing their Mac Pro with an iMac clearly aren't the customers who should be buying Mac Pro's in the first place, either that or they are so ignorant about their actual needs they just don't know any better.

I understand that some people really love OS X (it is a solid OS in all honesty), but if you are clinging to a Mac Pro that costs at least double what you'd pay for a PC then you're not using it for any practical reason, but emotional ones.

Content creation can be very easily done on PCs, Adobe's full line of software is now natively programmed around Windows and then ported to OS X. Using a PC gives you the option of using AMD's line which are pretty much custom tailored to heavily threaded workloads. The costs, as already mentioned, are significantly below a Mac Pro. And if you really hate Microsoft, anyone who knows what they're doing on OS X should have no trouble picking up Linux. The internal design of Mac Pro's is very clean and elegant (unless, as mentioned in the article you have to deal with a dead mobo) but it's nothing you can't achieve yourself with the right case and cable management.

Honestly, these people who would contemplate replacing their Mac Pro with an iMac clearly aren't the customers who should be buying Mac Pro's in the first place, either that or they are so ignorant about their actual needs they just don't know any better.

I really don't understand why the desktop OS makes so much difference for some.

So again I'm curious why Mac OSX is so much better that some can't seem to do without. This is an honest question!

I would like to try OSX. I don't own any apple products, but I would consider a Mac if there were something like an xMac/inexpensive Mac Pro.

Why I would want it: Unix based. I work in Unix. I would prefer a unix command line at home and I don't really like the level of polish in Linux or the SW support.Dabble in iOS development. I am considering an iPad and I would like to be able to develop little apps for it. You need a Mac to do this.Another OS that I really haven't used. I have used AmigaDOS,OS/2,Solaris,HP-UX,Digital UNIX,Linux (many distros), MS-DOS, Windows (Most versions since 3.0).

For other home users, it is apparently a slick OS and the HW isn't that out of line on pricing (and very nicely built).For Mac Pro users: I suspect many of them are using a suite of professional apps that started out on the Mac.

Apple does need to get more aggressive with Pro pricing to hang onto the professional market IMO

As far as dabbling in iOS development, I don't think you can put your apps on your device without first jailbreaking, unless you plan on publishing to the App Store, and that's likely more trouble than it's worth if you just want a quick program for your device.

My bloodied knuckles from Dell, HP, and Gateway towers are all the proof I need that it is easier by an order of magnitude to swap out components on a MacPro.

I don't know how else to ask this: Do you have gigantic sausage fingers?

Any tower case the size of a Mac pro case is going to have plenty of room in it. Some of the mini/micro towers can be tricky, but those aren't really a proper comparison. If ease of access is one of your concerns, you can get a giant case with all the right hinges and latches and everything else. All of my PC cases for the past several years have needed screws to hold in the motherboard and... that's it.

I understand that some people really love OS X (it is a solid OS in all honesty), but if you are clinging to a Mac Pro that costs at least double what you'd pay for a PC then you're not using it for any practical reason, but emotional ones.

If you're comparing a Xeon Mac Pro to a consumer i7 system then of course, you're talking drastic price differences. In most cases, comparing the base MP models with other Xeon workstations by other companies, the prices are comparable, not double.

I understand that some people really love OS X (it is a solid OS in all honesty), but if you are clinging to a Mac Pro that costs at least double what you'd pay for a PC then you're not using it for any practical reason, but emotional ones.

If you're comparing a Xeon Mac Pro to a consumer i7 system then of course, you're talking drastic price differences. In most cases, comparing the base MP models with other Xeon workstations by other companies, the prices are comparable, not double.

If you're buying a pre-built workstation then yes, the prices will be comparable (though you can still expect a 50% premium on the MP). But if you are building it yourself then yeah, the price will be half of the MP. Granted most graphic designers probably don't know how to build a computer and would rather order a sleek modern-looking MP tower then a pedestrian looking HP, but I wouldn't consider this to be a practical reason for sticking with Apples. And if Apple does drop the MP line, which in all likelihood they will, then you will be considerably hampering your business by staying with Apple all because of a fetish for OS X and slick packaging.

As a "pro" (i.e. who makes a living by creating content) the hardware is something I replace periodically. It's the result that matters, the pipeline (way and order of solving issues) is just the process. Experience with some pieces of software (which includes the OS) is important, but hardly vital. Things and technology evolves, you either find your niche (which may or may not wise, depending on many variables), or you work to keep up with the times.

Coming back to the Apple creed. I started off with Amigas (was in high school back then), I still have a soft spot for them (it really was way too ahead of its time, a real video machine). Things and time changed and I began to use SGI workstations: they were occasionally slow, but they were real workhorses, never choked or balked, just plodded on or raced to the end. Irix was the "Apple of UNIX'es", nice vectoral UI etc. I ramble.

Apple did have its disciples even back then. They were oblivious that in the pre-OSX years a Mac crashed more often than - something that crashes very often. No memory management, no true multitasking etc. You had to pre-allocate memory for individual programs, you never knew what went wrong when it went wrong (and it would), peripherals were borderline prohibitive expensive etc. But it looked nice, UI was straightforward and clean, people loved it to bits. And were very vocal and very defensive about the System 7 or 8 or 9, whatever it was, when even ye olde Windows 95 was able to run rings round it.

Then Jobs came back, and eventually OSX came about, was buggy as hell as all first versions usually are (even in a manageable hardware selection as Apple) but was a good (and necessary) leap forward. In the first few releases legacy h/w and s/w support was mainly a lip service just to keep things ticking along, then quickly abandoned. Then came intel hardware etc. It is stupid not to appreciate such a "push" forward, keeping the cruft down.

While Microsoft expended considerable effort to keep old stuff working alongs with the shiny and new, Apple just cut the cord and ran with it. And why not? It did not have that much to lose - corporations were not depending on it.

But I think this forward looking ideology developed its darker side: disdain for "power" users and developers. They became a speck in the multitudes of customers and followers thing. So, blunders such as Shake EOL'ing, QuicktimeX and FCPX were wont to happen. It's easier/shinier for the consumer (and based on more modern architecture) so let's "cut the cord", and f**k the old features a few errant nerds and developers depend upon! They'll come around eventually! We are the King! They need us! and so and so forth. It's quite unbecoming.

Personally I continue to use (and own) Apple hardware. They are sleek and look nice. But I (personally) find it a lot easier and faster to work in Windows 7. Apart from the malware protection requirement thing, it's got fewer niggles as a platform to get things done, easier to tinker with when there is a problem. And if I'm running Maya, it's usually better to run it on ugly HP workstations than a shiny (and whisper quiet) Mac Pro's, USD per USD. (GTD)

Horses for courses. When I buy (and bought) mom a Macbook Air so she can watch shows and do the email'n'google thing with some style, it's a hassle when her brand-new HP scanner/printer/fax thing balks. I don't care if it's because HP developed lousy drivers so it can't scan worth a s**t or stops after printing 10 pages. And neither does mom. Results matter, you see. It's a hassle when itunes locks up a brand new (unfaulty) machine (and it does). And that (beautiful aluminum sliver of a) machine is not taxed, even a tiny bit. The "it just works" thing may be mostly true for iphone (because it's so constrained), but it ain't true when we're speaking about a general purpose computing device, a.k.a. a personal computer. And I dare you to try changing the system font size, so it's more easily read by an older person on OSX. And no, tinkertool is not up to it either. It's what you get is.. what you get.

The hardware is the workbench I use my tools (Maya, Fusion, Photoshop, ZBrush, whatever). I want it big, solid and not wobbly. But that's as far as I care about its brand. Mac Pro usually is a solid machine, but so are a number of alternatives. In PCland, you can even roll your own if you really want.

Sum up my rambling: Apple cares only about its brand, and about the money it makes. It does not care about creative pro's. It probably does not feel the need to pay lip service to them anymore. No need to pay to run an expensive racing team, when your base models (which are the breadmakers) sells so well, right?

If you're buying a pre-built workstation then yes, the prices will be comparable (though you can still expect a 50% premium on the MP). But if you are building it yourself then yeah, the price will be half of the MP. Granted most graphic designers probably don't know how to build a computer and would rather order a sleek modern-looking MP tower then a pedestrian looking HP, but I wouldn't consider this to be a practical reason for sticking with Apples. And if Apple does drop the MP line, which in all likelihood they will, then you will be considerably hampering your business by staying with Apple all because of a fetish for OS X and slick packaging.

That isn't comparing the same thing then. Mission critical hardware, most businesses are going to want something that has a warranty behind it and probably a support plan, not something Joe at the help desk threw together from a box of parts from Newegg. The HP mentioned won't be significantly different in price from the Apple system, so if you're choosing to stay within the bounds of pre-built systems, there is no significant cost advantage, like I had said.

The Mac Pro line tends to last people anywhere from 3-7 years (I've been reading lots of stories from people on this issue both here and over at appleinsider) so if they do cancel the system, people can put in a final order and still be covered for several years. Plenty of time to work up a transition plan.

I've been seeing these articles all over the place basically predicting the demise of the Mac Pro and I'm laughing because NO ONE is mentioning the GIANT elephant in the room:

>>>>>>>>>> IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID <<<<<<<<<<<<

Here we are in the middle of the WORST financial crisis in American history since the Great Depression and you guys are hilariously speculating on why Apple's most expensive professional product is taking a hit in sales?

Once the economy recovers and Apple isn't more aggressively revamping an expensive product... then let me know. In the meantime, I fully expect Apple to continue selling Mac Pros and then giving them much more focus once the economy picks back up.

Glad none of you folks are running Apple, you'd run it into the ground.

You`re full of shit. I checked out your links and it`s still not any more convenient than my PC. I open the side panel and add or remove RAM just as easily and as for the HDD, all I do is disconnect the power and SAT cables, which takes about 5 seconds, and my HDD slides out just the same. I guess if you tell yourself a lie long enough.

Any chance of Apple change sides to the RED one? using the 8-cores (native), perhaps? I understand the new RED chips are hammered in x86-based benchmarks running Win7, but as we all know Mac OS is much much smarter than its "little brother". Do you folks think those new RED chips will perform better in a smarter environment?

Well, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on this thread...and yeah I read pretty much the whole thing. So, a few responses to this and that:

First off, on the Mac Pro - I seriously doubt it's going away. If nothing else, can anyone imagine Apple using anything besides its own equipment for high end work? The Mac Pro is profitable no matter how many Apple makes or sells, and profit is profit after all. However, I do think there's a way to boost Mac Pro sales...the "xMac" (although I'm sure Apple would name it better than that).

The xMac, in my view, would be a "prosumer" Mac, with a smaller version of the current Mac Pro tower. It would have 3-4 drive bays, mix and match configurable with SSDs, HDs, and Blu-ray burners (Apple needs to bite the bullet and support Blu-ray across its lineup). It would use a top of the line consumer Intel based motherboard, supporting a single CPU and non-ECC RAM, up to a fairly large maximum (let's say 32 GB as of today, scaling up into the future as usual). Importantly, it (and the Mac Pro line) would support the latest/greatest GPUs aggressively, independent of the rest of the hardware refresh cycle - perhaps even supporting multi-way Crossfire or SLI. This would coincide with an increased focus on gaming and graphics performance. The Mac is already seeing a lot more game ports as it is, due to its increased popularity.

Among other things, a reason this would be smart is that one area in which Apple takes a lot of flak is from gamers who sneer at its underpowered desktop machines. It would also position Apple better for more focus on GPU computation, which is a big part of computing's future. So, this xMac approach would mean a high-powered machine, both computing wise, and literally in the case of power dissipation. This is where Apple's engineering expertise could shine, producing a quiet high-powered box in contrast with its competitors. There's plenty of possible innovation in cooling solutions.

The perceived value of such an xMac, quiet, with replaceable components, separate monitor, and fairly unlimited expansion via Thunderbolt is hard to overstate. It should be possible to do a decent model for about $1500. It would attract buyers in droves, and the true "pro" users (NOT content creators for the most part) would be upsold to Mac Pros. With competitive graphics performance, Macs could (finally) become a viable CAD platform for instance. This type of machine would also be attractive to lots of businesses that don't like the expense of fixing iMacs, or the up-front expense of Mac Pros.

Now, I'm sure the "cannibals" are screaming about now... "It will cannibalize iMac sales!" "It will cannibalize Mac Pro sales!" Both of those are true...however, both the iMac and Mac Pro will have an important niche. Many folks are more concerned about design and saving space, and don't really want or need a 500+ Watt computer. Those are iMac (or Macbook) customers. A significant set of scientists, engineers, software developers, day traders and similar users need the known correctness of ECC RAM, massive horsepower, and aren't very price sensitive. Those are Mac Pro customers - and I'd like to see the high end of Mac Pro go a lot higher (more CPUs, more RAM, massive GPU expansion). I heartily agree with the poster who made the point about Mac Pro being a "halo" product for Apple. The big win for Apple with this overall strategy is that by getting a chunk of the "enthusiast" market, it will get a lot of buzz and enthusiasm, and I'm sure Mac sales would get a substantial boost across the board.

A lot of the enthusiasts who are building Hackintoshes right now would flock to a machine like this. By the way, those of you who advocate Hackintosh if Mac Pro were to go away are missing the fact that without Mac Pros, you will no longer get desktop GPU drivers, as even the iMacs use mobile parts. Bye-bye viable Hackintosh. There is also the possibility that Apple will truly lock its OS to only its hardware, something it could do now if it deemed it necessary.

Finally, to those who think iOS is cannibalizing Mac and MacOS - you are forgetting that iOS and MacOS are almost identical except for the user interface layer, which has now begun to converge. It doesn't take Apple a whole lot of extra effort to develop both. One thing to watch is how successful the new 64-bit ARM parts are from NVIDIA and others. If (and it's a huge "if") the high-end ARM parts can beat Intel on performance, they'll look awfully tempting to Apple I think - especially if Windows on ARM is substantially faster than MacOS on Intel. Microsoft has already announced support for the 64-bit ARM for desktop use.

I am the owner of a recording and film studio in Montreal, getting into the app, web and design business and I would not see myself live without the Mac Pro. I own a 13,000$ ProTools HD3 system. They are PCIe cards to run their sound recording software; the industry standard. Being the only Mac that allows for expansion, like PCIe, RAM, Hard Drives, A lot of other industries relying on Apple Mac Pro would suddenly be stuck either revamping their product quickly so support another platform, or the less powerful and efficient iMac or Mac Mini... Being able to work on a 12 core system with 32gb of RAM and 4 HDD, I would not see myself use anything less.

Would you go from your favourite super car to a modified Mini Cooper? Sure it's a nice car, but it's not as powerful...

The xMac, in my view, would be a "prosumer" Mac, with a smaller version of the current Mac Pro tower. It would have 3-4 drive bays, mix and match configurable with SSDs, HDs, and Blu-ray burners (Apple needs to bite the bullet and support Blu-ray across its lineup). It would use a top of the line consumer Intel based motherboard, supporting a single CPU and non-ECC RAM, up to a fairly large maximum (let's say 32 GB as of today, scaling up into the future as usual). Importantly, it (and the Mac Pro line) would support the latest/greatest GPUs aggressively, independent of the rest of the hardware refresh cycle - perhaps even supporting multi-way Crossfire or SLI. This would coincide with an increased focus on gaming and graphics performance. The Mac is already seeing a lot more game ports as it is, due to its increased popularity.

The perceived value of such an xMac, quiet, with replaceable components, separate monitor, and fairly unlimited expansion via Thunderbolt is hard to overstate. It should be possible to do a decent model for about $1500. It would attract buyers in droves, and the true "pro" users (NOT content creators for the most part) would be upsold to Mac Pros. With competitive graphics performance, Macs could (finally) become a viable CAD platform for instance. This type of machine would also be attractive to lots of businesses that don't like the expense of fixing iMacs, or the up-front expense of Mac Pros.

Now, I'm sure the "cannibals" are screaming about now...

I agree, the Mac Pro is very unlikely to be going away.

But I don't think you really need(or will see) a separate xMac model. If they haven't done it before, doing it now makes even less sense.

It is opportunity time to be retrench the Mac Pro as more affordable.

A new streamlined (cost reduced) case and an entry level (standard desktop parts) Mac Pro would easily slot in under $1500.

You can simply move from single core destkop CPU to dual core server class with ECC all in the same case covering a wide array of niches with one model.

Yes cannibalization talk is nonsense. If it is a Mac Pro it can't cannibalize the Mac Pro and it will only have a small effect on high end iMacs.

Sum up my rambling: Apple cares only about its brand, and about the money it makes. It does not care about creative pro's.

And which company doesn't care about its brand or the money it makes, but does care about creative pro's?

You're right - but Apple does not really need the income from the admittedly niche market of creative pro's. On the other hand, Apple has enough money not to care about the money, but the image of making one of the best workstations out there.

"Swapping drives, adding RAM, or adding PCI Express cards or GPUs are relatively simple tasks on a Mac Pro; the same can't be said for even for most PC towers"

Does the Ram and video card seat itself? How could it be any easier on a Mac than a PC?

As far as PCI cards and RAM, it's the same with probably the Mac Pro having a better more accessible design, but the HD is easy as pie. Open lid, pull tray out, swap HD, stick tray in, close lid, done. No cables to mess around with. The HD connect directly to the motherboard.

Does the Ram and video card seat itself? How could it be any easier on a Mac than a PC?

Access. How many PC towers have you seen where the RAM is blocked by the hard drive bays? Perhaps the video card is right next to the CPU cooler, and hence has to be wriggled out with great care?...

Really, that's your issue?! How often do you have to do that and how much longer does it take? 5, maybe 15 minutes. It shouldn't be a daily operation (per workstation) either, so that argument is really mute

Some diehard Mac users just won't switch back. “Could I switch to Windows? Yes, since Adobe makes its Creative Suite for Windows,” graphic designer Christopher Cobble told Ars. “Would I switch? Not even if I had to use a Mac mini.”

This is pretty much a working definition of brainless zealotry. "I will screw these nuts into those bolts with this hammer because my favourite tool company stopped making spanners."

Quote:

My bloodied knuckles from Dell, HP, and Gateway towers are all the proof I need that it is easier by an order of magnitude to swap out components on a MacPro.

I still have scars from 8600 and 9600 towers. Apple's cases are a mixed bag - some of them have been brilliant, some of them... not so much.